City Council approves Prairie Landing PUD amid resident objections over tree removal and an ongoing property lawsuit

The City of Joliet on March 18 adopted ordinances approving the Prairie Landing preliminary planned unit development (PUD-12-24) and the rezoning of about 17.9 acres at 2200 Essington Road to R-2 single-family residential.

Residents raised objections during the meeting’s public comment period about trees and a pending adverse-possession lawsuit affecting a strip of land adjacent to the proposed development. Maria Lach, a nearby resident, asked whether the plan could be approved while title to part of the land was still in court. Attorney and representative for the developer Steve Bauer said TR Horton is not involved in that litigation and that the area in litigation has been excluded from the parcel TR Horton is under contract to purchase. Bauer said some trees on the project will be preserved and that the developer does not want to remove trees “unless you have to.” He added that when trees must be removed the city’s tree-preservation requirements would apply, including replacement or payment into a tree bank fund.

Council members also disclosed a potential conflict: the purchase vehicle for the land is Westside Joliet Real Estate LLC, and council members said Mayor Mary Darcy has an ownership interest in that LLC. The mayor recused himself from dais activity connected to that interest; the council proceeded with the ordinances after a motion and roll-call vote. The ordinances were adopted by recorded unanimous ayes from the members present.

Why it matters: The vote authorizes a major residential development and rezoning while leaving at least one outstanding private legal dispute unresolved. Residents and the developer differ on which trees will be preserved; city staff and the developer signaled that any required removals will trigger replacement or tree-bank mitigation under the city’s tree-preservation rules.

Council and staff said the portion of land that is the subject of the adverse-possession action is not plotted as home lots in the developer’s engineering plan and that, if litigation affects ownership, the project can proceed without that remnant or be reconfigured to accommodate the final title outcome. The developer characterized the contested strip as north of the main access roadway and not essential to the proposed lot layout.

Direct quotes limited to speakers on the record: Steve Bauer, representing TR Horton, said: “TR Horton has no involvement in the suit,” and later, “We don't have any desire to remove more trees than are necessary.” A resident, Maria Lach, said she would “go to the highest court” to press her property claim if necessary.

The council’s approval included a standard plan-review and subdivision-approval sequence: preliminary PUD approval and rezoning ordinances were adopted. Councilmembers who voted aye were recorded in the roll call; Mayor Darcy’s involvement was disclosed and he was not active on the dais for this matter.

Ending: The development can proceed under the approved zoning and PUD, subject to final engineering and platting. Because the adverse-possession litigation remains pending, staff and the developer said the project may be adjusted if the court decrees ownership changes for the small disputed area. Residents said they will continue to press for guarantees about which trees will remain.